28 
considerable uncertainty, and it is not out of place to mention them in 
a paper on “The British Species of Perizorna,” as they seem so closely 
connected with our British representatives of the group that they 
might have been overlooked here, even if not merely of varietal rank. 
The type specimen of the former, was taken by Boheman, at Ronneby, 
in the province Blekinge, southern Sweden, on the occasion of an 
excursion to that part of the country, more than half a century ago, 
and was published as a new species under the name of Cidaria fiexuo- 
sana ( Kontjl. Vet. Ah. Handl. for 1851, p. 185). The diagnosis runs: 
“ Capillis prothoraceque cinereis, alis anterioribus fusco-griseis, fasciis 
duabus sat latis, dentatis, una ante medium obsoleta, altera pone 
medium evidentiore lineaque- tenui undulata ante apicem, albidis, 
fimbriis griseis ; alis posterioribus cinereis, fasciis duabus, transversis, 
tenuibus, dilute griseis. Long, al. exp. 21 millim.” It was a $ , and 
was taken among hazel on June 26th, 1851. A detailed description 
is added, slightly amplifying the diagnosis, but adding little, if any¬ 
thing, which could be of much use for elucidating the identification of 
the species. This type specimen has remained unique (at least for 
bcandinavia), and one would not have hesitated to suggest it must 
have been an aberration of some known species but for the testimony 
of recent Scandinavian authors. It is fortunately preserved at Stock¬ 
holm, and has been redescribed by Lampa (Ent. Tid., vi., p. 115) and 
Aurivillius ( Nord Fjdr., p. 247). The former says that in markings it 
“ much resembles affinitaria ? , H--S., fig. 319 ” (i.e., var. rivinata), 
but is much smaller and paler. Dark central band of forewings brown- 
grey, not yellowish, its projection in cell 2 long, broadly lanceolate, 
and not blunted at the tip ; near the inner margin this band forms a 
pointed tooth in cell 1 b. Fringes apparently lack the whitish spots. 
Hindwings nearly white, with two indistinct greyish bands. Auri¬ 
villius describes the genitalia (as he does of all the Scandinavian 
species of the genus), and says that these prove it a “certainly distinct 
species.” This would be conclusive, w r ere it not for two considerations: 
(1) that the examination may be presumed to have been made without 
dissection, and that therefore it is hard to conceive that an absolutely 
perfect study can have been made; and (2) that Aurivillius did not 
know every described species of the group. I do not see much in the 
description to suggest that it might be united with luydunaria, H.-S., 
but the possibility is not to be altogether lost sight of. The description 
of the genitalia runs “ $ sidoklaffer i inre delen jemnbreda, utat 
afsmalnande till en ratt skarp spets ; undre kanten hela vagen niistan 
rak, den ofre forst rak, sedan i yttre delen iinda till spetsen afsneddad 
nedat; spetsen bildas saledes af det nedre hornet.” Aurivillius also 
adds to Lampa’s description of the specimen, that its outer-marginal 
line is more or less distinctly broken up into dots. Staudinger and 
Rebel (p. 308), without a query, and without any citation which will 
help one to explain their action, refer Jiexuosaria as ab. to hydrata, 
giving as localities southern Sweden and Carniola ; one can only con¬ 
clude that one or more specimens agreeing with Boheman’s description 
have recently been taken in Carniola, and have convinced the authors 
that they were aberrant hydrata; but the diagnosis is given “sec. 
specim. typ.” 
Fennica, Reuter, is almost equally puzzling. It was founded (Acta 
Soc. F. F. Fenn., ix., no. 6, p. 75, 1893) upon two specimens, $ and 
